Superhero movies....
Aug. 4th, 2013 07:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1) 1978 Superman vs. 2013 Man of Steel
Re-watched the 1978 Richard Donner classic Superman. Watching it again underlined why Man of Steel did not work. The first version embraced the comic book, and concentrated on the humor, making sly fun of the hero and the verse, the second version took both far too seriously. One has a great deal of color infused throughout, while the other appears to be so stripped of color it may as well be in black and white. Also the first is more optimistic and romantic, while the second has a decidedly nihilistic and militaristic vibe. But mainly the visuals in the first, along with the music pull at you. Particularly in the beginning:
This trailer gets it across, with Glenn Ford portraying Jonathan Kent.
Now contrast with Man of Steel...
One is just more about delight, helping others not just family members...the other has a darker, grayer undertone, a drabness, and focuses more on war and violence. Both casts are excellent, no what is off is the focus and how it is told.
2) Dark Knight Returns Part I - Animated Version of Frank Miller classic graphic novel.
The other flick I saw today, courtesy of netflix, was The Dark Knight Returns Part I based on the classic Frank Miller comics of the same name. And it follows it exactly, with Peter Weller voicing Batman. I'd forgotten what a socio-political novel it was. It's more of a graphic novel than a comic, following in the same vein as Alan Moore's V for Vendetta and The Killing Joke. This comic takes place in the 21st Century, basically five years prior to now. Bruce Wayne is in his 60s. And the novel is an interesting sociological/political examination of vigilantism and superheroes, in line with Watchmen. Asking harsh questions - like whether taking a hard stance on crime necessarily equals fascism. What the film underlined for me is once again what extremists people are. It's always one extreme or another. There's no in between. Saw it with the two Superman films above, one was really dark and one was light andfrothy campy. Can't we find a middle ground?? Hello?
Knowing something about Frank Miller, more than I want to actually (I really would rather know less about entertainers, writers, and artists than I do), I have to say that while the film could be interpreted as a cautionary and ironic tale about extreme vigilantism - I know Miller's intent was most likely the opposite, a justification of it. The satiric touches and irony is poking fun at civil rights activists, human rights advocates, and anti-war protesters - along with mental health advocates. Which, ahem, makes reading and watching it - slightly disturbing not to mention uncomfortable at times. In short, if this is a trigger for you, you may want to avoid. Unlike The Avengers which arguably discusses the same things, this is a bit more on the nose about it. In other words, you can ignore it in the Avengers or be oblivious, you really can't ignore it here. That said, it is rather funny in places and the novel/film is meant to be taken as a satire, much like Alan Moore's Watchmen.
Although I admittedly started dosing off during the news commentary sections.
What made the graphic novel a delight was the satire of the media obsessed, 24/7 news culture. Where you are inundated by news commentator and media experts discussing every facet of every problem. The sad thing is...that he wrote this in the 1980s - predicting an uber-violent society with a 24/7 media culture. The only thing he didn't pick up on was the technology advances - but Miller is a noir writer not a science fiction writer, so I will give him a pass. The film version as I stated above follows the graphic novel almost to the letter - even the art is the same. It's like watching the novel come to life. So if you enjoyed or loved the novel - you will be in heaven. The content is exactly the same. It's a faithful rendition more so than Zack Synder's live action version of Watchmen, making me sort of wish they'd done an animated version of that film instead.
Anyhow...here's a clip from it so you can judge for yourselves:
3. What would be your top Superhero Movies? It's harder than I thought.
Re-watched the 1978 Richard Donner classic Superman. Watching it again underlined why Man of Steel did not work. The first version embraced the comic book, and concentrated on the humor, making sly fun of the hero and the verse, the second version took both far too seriously. One has a great deal of color infused throughout, while the other appears to be so stripped of color it may as well be in black and white. Also the first is more optimistic and romantic, while the second has a decidedly nihilistic and militaristic vibe. But mainly the visuals in the first, along with the music pull at you. Particularly in the beginning:
This trailer gets it across, with Glenn Ford portraying Jonathan Kent.
Now contrast with Man of Steel...
One is just more about delight, helping others not just family members...the other has a darker, grayer undertone, a drabness, and focuses more on war and violence. Both casts are excellent, no what is off is the focus and how it is told.
2) Dark Knight Returns Part I - Animated Version of Frank Miller classic graphic novel.
The other flick I saw today, courtesy of netflix, was The Dark Knight Returns Part I based on the classic Frank Miller comics of the same name. And it follows it exactly, with Peter Weller voicing Batman. I'd forgotten what a socio-political novel it was. It's more of a graphic novel than a comic, following in the same vein as Alan Moore's V for Vendetta and The Killing Joke. This comic takes place in the 21st Century, basically five years prior to now. Bruce Wayne is in his 60s. And the novel is an interesting sociological/political examination of vigilantism and superheroes, in line with Watchmen. Asking harsh questions - like whether taking a hard stance on crime necessarily equals fascism. What the film underlined for me is once again what extremists people are. It's always one extreme or another. There's no in between. Saw it with the two Superman films above, one was really dark and one was light and
Knowing something about Frank Miller, more than I want to actually (I really would rather know less about entertainers, writers, and artists than I do), I have to say that while the film could be interpreted as a cautionary and ironic tale about extreme vigilantism - I know Miller's intent was most likely the opposite, a justification of it. The satiric touches and irony is poking fun at civil rights activists, human rights advocates, and anti-war protesters - along with mental health advocates. Which, ahem, makes reading and watching it - slightly disturbing not to mention uncomfortable at times. In short, if this is a trigger for you, you may want to avoid. Unlike The Avengers which arguably discusses the same things, this is a bit more on the nose about it. In other words, you can ignore it in the Avengers or be oblivious, you really can't ignore it here. That said, it is rather funny in places and the novel/film is meant to be taken as a satire, much like Alan Moore's Watchmen.
Although I admittedly started dosing off during the news commentary sections.
What made the graphic novel a delight was the satire of the media obsessed, 24/7 news culture. Where you are inundated by news commentator and media experts discussing every facet of every problem. The sad thing is...that he wrote this in the 1980s - predicting an uber-violent society with a 24/7 media culture. The only thing he didn't pick up on was the technology advances - but Miller is a noir writer not a science fiction writer, so I will give him a pass. The film version as I stated above follows the graphic novel almost to the letter - even the art is the same. It's like watching the novel come to life. So if you enjoyed or loved the novel - you will be in heaven. The content is exactly the same. It's a faithful rendition more so than Zack Synder's live action version of Watchmen, making me sort of wish they'd done an animated version of that film instead.
Anyhow...here's a clip from it so you can judge for yourselves:
3. What would be your top Superhero Movies? It's harder than I thought.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-08-04 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-05 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-05 07:52 am (UTC)Two of my favourite "superhero" movies in recent years are takes on the idea of ordinary people deciding to put on a suit and become heroes... only to realise that the world doesn't run on comic book logic and most violent and well-organised criminals aren't remotely scared of a grown man with his underpants on the outside. Defendor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kg8HFQ1xP4), with Woody Harrelson, and Super (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL57ncw2jr8) with Rainn Wilson and Ellen Page. Both are technically comedies, but once you realise that the joke is on us for laughing at the idea that one person can make a difference, they end up rather heartbreaking...
no subject
Date: 2013-08-05 10:55 pm (UTC)Noir can be interpreted from a socio-political perspective as fascist.
It certainly depicts that type of world - dark hopeless world that must be rigidly controlled or it falls into chaos.
But it can also be argued that all superhero flicks and the genre itself has fascist leanings - after-all, you have a hero who beats the villains into submission and is more powerful than people are. There's definitely an underlying theme of that in Captain America, Iron Man and The Avengers. (Less so with X-men, which is basically about the disenfranchized and the fight to be accepted without taking over as dictators (Xavier vs. Magneto).)
I prefer Nolan's films to Burton's, mainly because there isn't much to Burton's films. Watching them feels a bit like eating a cream puff - or a piece of beautifully iced wedding cake - not much there. I have the same problem with Neil Gaimen. Style over substance. I never really feel anything when I read Gaimen or watch Burton...and that's a problem. They manage to completely disengage me from the story and their characters. All I see is the pretty iced flowers. They are pretty. But I want more.
Nolan's Batman films in stark contrast feel like eating a sirloin steak with baked potato, string beans, and for desert...a dense chocolate cake or something like that. There's a lot going on in his films. You can analyze them five different ways. The characters, both villains and heroes are alarmingly and violently complex. And the film itself...is nuanced. Sure it may have a disturbing political message, but you can interpret another one. And heck, Burton's also have that message - you are just more distracted with all the crazy costumes and buffonery.
That said? I can't say Nolan's Batman films are films I want to re-watch. Haven't been able to re-watch Dark Knight at all. Once was definitely enough. While I have rewatched Burton's flicks more than once - possibly for the same reason one eats more than one cream puff - you want more.